Orly Taitz, Esq Attorney & Counselor at Law 26302 La Paz ste 211 Mission Viejo Ca 92691 ph. 949-683-5411 fax 949-586-2082 California Bar ID No. 223433 (Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice U.S.D.C. Middle District of Georgia Submitted August 24, 2009) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION CPT Connie Rhodes MD, 8 Plaint v. 8 Dr ROBERT GATES, UNITED § STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, § BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, defacto § PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, § Defendants. § sa09cao703 XR Rule 65(b) Application for ‘Temporary Restraining Order APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Plaintiff Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes has received what appear to be facially valid orders mobilizing her to active duty with the United States Army in Iraq on September Sth, 2009 (Exhibit A). Captain Rhodes is both a US army officer and a medical doctor, a flight surgeon. On May 15th of this year 501 brigade out of Fort Campbell, KY, currently stationed in Iraq, has requested a support of medical personal in Iraq. Two days ago, August the 23rd, an order was given through the chain of command via e-mail for Captain Rhodes to arrive in San Antonio TX, Fort ‘Sam Houston for Tactical Combat Medical Care Course (TCMC) to be held from August 30th till September 4t and next day, on September the 5th to arrive in FortBenning in Columbus GA for immediate deployment to Iraq for a period of one year and twelve days from September Sth, 2009 until September 17th 2010. Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes wants to serve her country and fulfill her tour of duty, however asa US army officer and a medical doctor she has severe reservations regarding legitimacy of Barack Obama as the Commander in Chief and repercussions of her service under his orders, particularly in light of mounting evidence of him having allegiance to other Nations and citizenship of Kenya, Indonesia and Great Britain. Plaintiff presents the key question in this case as one of first impression, never before decided in the history of the United States: Is an officer entitled to refuse orders on grounds of conscientious objection to the legitimate constitutional authority of the current de facto Commander-in-Chief? In the alternative, is an officer entitled to a judicial stay of the enforcement of facially valid military orders where that officer can show evidence that the chain-of-command from the commander-in-chief is tainted by illegal activity? In the alternative, does the issuance of orders based on a constitutionally infirm chain-of-command under Article Il create or render military service as a mere “involuntary servitude” in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment which may be judicially enjoined? Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against the United States Department of Defense, as expressly authorized by 5 U.S.C. §702. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he will suffer legally cognizable but irreparable injury because of agency (U.S. Department of Defense) action if the order attached as Exhibit A were to be enforced, and that Plaintiff is adversely affected and aggrieved by this agency action within the meaning of Article II, §§1-2 of the United States Constitution,and is entitled to judicial review thereof. This action is filed in this United States District Court in San Antonio, TX, which venue is appropriate in that CPT Dr. Rhodes was ordered to report for pre-deployment at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio TX on August 304, 2009. This suit is filed seeking purely injunctive and declaratory relief (and no money damages) and the Complaint to be filed within 10-15 days of the filing of this Application for Temporary Restraining Order (but in any case prior to or on even date with the hearing on Preliminary Injunction) states a claim that the Department of Defense, including the de facto President Barack Hussein Obama, as de facto Commander in Chief, together with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates have acted illegally/i.e., without actual legal authority (valid chain of command) in issuing this order, or else failed to act in a de jure official capacity at all, or else have acted under color of legal authority by pretending that a lawful chain of command under the authority of a constitutionally qualified and elected President has been established pursuant to Article II, $§1-2 of the United States, Constitution, when in fact, the current de facto Commander-in-Chief is not constitutionally qualified nor was he legally elected or appointed to succeed to the office of President of the United States. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. $702 this Application and Complaint yet to be filed may proceed and shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that the Court may determine that this suit is filed against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party’. 1 § USC. §702 states in relevant part: